Down In History

(2 of 6)

There has been a slapdash quality to this matter ever since it landed in Congress's hands. Whatever misgivings people had about Starr's process and tactics were merely an overture to these past four weeks, in which again and again the Republican leaders signaled that they were determined to Uphold the Rule of Law, even if they had to burn it down in the process. Starr's report was published before any lawmakers had even read it, much less edited it to protect innocent bystanders. Clinton's supposedly secret grand jury testimony was released after a party-line vote, and the vote to launch an inquiry was scheduled before anyone had discussed, much less decided, whether even the worst assertions against the President met the legal standard for impeachable offenses.

That pattern left the impression that the American people treat constitutional matters as more sacred than the leaders to whom they are entrusted, and the debate on Thursday sealed it. The mood was grim and rash and deeply bitter. When House minority leader Richard Gephardt mentioned on the floor the Republican lust to poke their investigative Q-Tips into the cracks of everything from campaign finance to Travelgate to the FBI files, many Republicans forgot their instructions to be dignified and cheered, yelped "Yes!" and applauded. And when Gephardt later said, in true sorrow, that "our problem is we don't trust one another," some Republicans burst out laughing.

For much of the proceedings, two-thirds of the members didn't even bother to show up to listen to their colleagues, to the point that Democrat David Obey urged the Speaker to tell members that "whatever they're doing, they ought to drop it and get their tails in here." At the outset, the proceedings were confined to two hours, which produced the spectacle of one lawmaker after another finding that he didn't have time to serve up a sound bite, much less an idea. Some complained that they had spent more time naming post offices last week. "I speak for the people who put me here and want to know how I represent their interests here," declared Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro. "The Speaker chose that I should be denied an opportunity to finish my sentence. That's his judgment." Another called it a "charade of justice."

That hardly mattered to the outcome, since minds were made up before the debate began, but it reinforced the sense that this is a headlong descent into quicksand. Newt Gingrich had to raise voice and gavel repeatedly to be heard over chattering staffers and milling members. Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde invoked "our awesome and terrible responsibility," as he likened the offenses President Clinton allegedly committed by concealing his dalliance with Lewinsky to the abuses of government perpetrated by Richard Nixon. "This isn't about sexual misconduct any more than Watergate was about a third-rate burglary," proclaimed Hyde, who urged members to listen to that still, small voice whispering "duty, duty, duty." The Democrats took the opposite tack, warning of the horrors ahead. "Do we really want two more years of Monica Lewinsky?" Democrat David Bonior bellowed from the well of the House. "Two more years of Linda Tripp?"